Re: [irs-discuss] What's in a name?

Chris Grundemann <C.Grundemann@cablelabs.com> Mon, 12 November 2012 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <C.Grundemann@cablelabs.com>
X-Original-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F02F121F854B for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:44:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hTrfLbS3rqmw for <irs-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:44:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8746921F86E5 for <irs-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:44:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qACGiisn026788; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:44:44 -0700
Received: from srvxchg.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.15) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:44:44 -0700 (MST)
X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/407/kyzyl.cablelabs.com)
Received: from srvxchg.cablelabs.com ([10.5.0.15]) by srvxchg ([10.5.0.15]) with mapi; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:44:44 -0700
From: Chris Grundemann <C.Grundemann@cablelabs.com>
To: Hannes Gredler <hannes@juniper.net>, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:44:44 -0700
Thread-Topic: [irs-discuss] What's in a name?
Thread-Index: Ac3A9QT68qG5iFRcS3uqXvCMtxtEWQ==
Message-ID: <CCC67519.C54C%c.grundemann@cablelabs.com>
In-Reply-To: <A85A8D80-8BC3-441E-A5F1-34C308F74FC4@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Approved: ondar
Cc: "irs-discuss@ietf.org" <irs-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [irs-discuss] What's in a name?
X-BeenThere: irs-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <irs-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/irs-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:irs-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss>, <mailto:irs-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:44:53 -0000

On 11/12/12 8:04 AM, "Hannes Gredler" <hannes@juniper.net>; wrote:

>for non US-taxpayers the name 'IRS' is not as negative co-notated as one
>might guess.
>it is in fact meaningless; - the jin is already out of the bottle (press
>articles, in-house chatter)
>and changing names at this point it will be likely creating further
>confusion;
>keeping status quo is IMO less painful;

+1, context matters and I don't see the US revenue service getting
involved in routing anytime soon (or at least we can hope)Š

I say stick with IRS.

$0.02
~Chris


>
>/hannes
>
>On Nov 12, 2012, at 3:49 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>> Personally, I find discussions of what name/acronym to use a bit sad.
>>I've had
>> enough code review hours wasted debating the names of variables to not
>>want to
>> spend any more time on this sort of thing.
>> 
>> However, I note that there was some unease about the use of IRS. If we
>>really
>> need to find a new name for this work (and I note that RSI is also used
>>for
>> something else) we need to find a solution soon.
>> 
>> Can I suggest that only those people who have a strong objection to IRS
>>need to
>> contribute to the discussion. Furthermore, we don't need suggestions to
>>be
>> floated, we need solid and definite proposals. That way we will
>>possibly reach a
>> serious conclusion quickly.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Adrian
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> irs-discuss mailing list
>> irs-discuss@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss
>> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>irs-discuss mailing list
>irs-discuss@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss